Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Constitution is silent on how many people can serve on SCOTUS. BTW, Constitution also doesn't specify that SCOTUS members be either judges or lawyers. (Although I think most of us these days think a SCOTUS justice should have a significant background in law.)
Totally up to Congress.
Well then, if Trump did that and started adding conservatives judges, you'd get a never-ending spiral of later presidents adding their own as well. Next democrat president we got would start adding some of his/her own, and the next republican still more, and so on. Before you know it you'd have a Supreme Court of 87 judges. Lovely.
Well then, if Trump did that and started adding conservatives judges, you'd get a never-ending spiral of later presidents adding their own as well. Next democrat president we got would start adding some of his/her own, and the next republican still more, and so on. Before you know it you'd have a Supreme Court of 87 judges. Lovely.
I'm not saying that it should happen. Only that it could, and that it is totally up to Congress, the Constitution is silent on the matter.
But of course a D-majority House wouldn't let Trump get away with it, so the only chance for the OP's proposal is in the next two months. Not happenin'.
No. Constitution is silent on how many people can serve on SCOTUS. BTW, Constitution also doesn't specify that SCOTUS members be either judges or lawyers. (Although I think most of us these days think a SCOTUS justice should have a significant background in law.)
Totally up to Congress.
not only that but scotus members do not even have to be citizens of this country.
Maybe what they need is, a constitutional amendment to specify the number of Supreme Court justices, just to eliminate any doubt about it.
I dunno. I think nine is a reasonable number, but I think 11 or 13 would be just as good. Obviously, you can have a SCOTUS that is so large as to be unwieldy, and so small as to be non-representative of a range of legal opinion, but there's a pretty large middle ground there. I'm good with leaving it up to Congress.
If a Congress, after due deliberation, agreed to expand the Court, that would be fine with me. I could see a deal being done to expand the justices to 11, with one of the new justices being chosen from the liberal end of the spectrum, and one from the conservative. Thereafter, of course, all 11 chosen the way they are now as vacancies arise. The idea is to spread out the workload a bit and ensure that there is a wide range of legal opinions on the Court. I think "packing" to favor one party or the other is iniquitous. And I say this as a huge FDR fan. It was not one of his better ideas.
But the reform I'd most like to see? An end to this idea of liberal/conservative seats. How about requiring the approval of at least 35% of each party represented in Congress for confirmation?
I'm not saying that it should happen. Only that it could, and that it is totally up to Congress, the Constitution is silent on the matter.
But of course a D-majority House wouldn't let Trump get away with it, so the only chance for the OP's proposal is in the next two months. Not happenin'.
The house has absolutely no say in it. Only the Senate does.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
No. Constitution is silent on how many people can serve on SCOTUS. BTW, Constitution also doesn't specify that SCOTUS members be either judges or lawyers. (Although I think most of us these days think a SCOTUS justice should have a significant background in law.)
Totally up to Congress.
Most of us also thought a POTUS should have a working knowledge of how government functions.
The house has absolutely no say in it. Only the Senate does.
Oh, I think you'd find that if the Senate tried to strike out on its own that way, there'd be, um, blowback.
It's true what you say, but just because they could do it doesn't mean they would.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
